advanced super-zoom vs. digital SLR... what should I get?

I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
$1000).

The main things I'm looking for a
- Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
which is nice)
- Good image quality

Here are some of the questions I have:
- Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
and 8 x 10?
- How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?

Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?

Thanks!

The first question you need to answer is do you want to carry around the
lenses for the dSLR, you will need at least two to match what you can get
with a 12X super zoom. BTW I am in the same boat except I already have had a
Panasonic FZ20 and I currently have the 30. Now I am trying to decided if a
dSLR like the Sony a100 (it has OIS built-in to body so all lenses are OIS)
or go for the FZ50 which I currently have on loan from Panasonic. I went out
today and took some shots with the 50 to see if it is something I could live
with. My backyard shots have left me wondering if the 50 is worth the
upgrade from the 30.

If I go for dSLR I will loose zoom as I plan to have only one lens for it
probably something like a 28-200 or something close to that. Even with the
1.6 crop factor that is much less zoom than my Panasonic. Since I use zoom a
lot it is a concern.

The reason I am considering a dSLR again (I had a 20D and hated it) is
because I like the lower noise at higher ISO and I like the increased depth
of field. The super zooms with the small sensors make it hard to get good
depth of field using full auto. I can do ok fooling with the aperture
priority mode but I really don't want to go that route all that often.

R


wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
$1000).

The main things I'm looking for a
- Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
which is nice)
- Good image quality

Here are some of the questions I have:
- Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
and 8 x 10?
- How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?

Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?

Thanks!

i shoot my artwork, and send off the hi-res images to printers for
magazine ads and invites. so this is what i noticed.....

for my needs,,,right now,,,,dslr's are a pain in the @ss.

i need at least 8mp for a 300dpi print quality 8x10. i don't for a
second believe a 6mp dslr is as good as an 8mp advanced p&s. the image
quality might be better, but an 8x10 print is an 8x10 print, and with
300dpi that means at least an 8mp camera.

the dslr has a better more subtle value/color range, but a p&s gives me
what i want.

because i focus in on artwork, i prefer the manual focus on my lumix
fz30. with the dslr's i pretty much would have to depend on their auto
focus, unless i change the screen.

if you have to ask about a noticeable quality difference in images,
then an advanced p&s is all you need.

the only advantage i can think of is if you buy into a dslr system, you
can use the lenses and just buy better bodies in the future, but buying
into a system = more money to spend.

the lumix uses a leitz, the sony(dsc-r1) uses a zeiss,,,and the cameras
look cool.

check out steve's digicams and image resource for great comparative
sample images.

You get alot for your money with the 12x zooms. The H5 set at 5mp it is
14x optical zoom or 504mm equivilant. Add on the 1.7x telephoto lens and
you get 856mm equivilant. Panasonic offers the same Smart Zoom feature,
Canon does not. For what you get with 12x zooms you would pay 5-10x that
for a dslr and not get Lcd preview, no sensor dust, and probably no
image stabilisation. For lowlight the H5 works fine with up to 30
seconds shutter and an upgraded noise reduction. Its to bad they have no
Bulb setting. True iso performance is better and other parameters have
more options with a Dslr. But super zooms do very well at what they do
for little cost. Its an optimised package. I use the H5.

The main things I'm looking for a
- Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
which is nice)
- Good image quality

Here are some of the questions I have:
- Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
and 8 x 10?

In some situations, yes, in some, no.

- How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?

Yes. ISO 1600 on most dSLRs has less noise than ISO 400 on many (most?)
P&S cameras. Some dSLRs are still better at 3200 than P&Ss at 400. Plus,
you can get lenses for the dSLR that have much larger apertures than the P&S
camera. The ISO alone will give you 4x the light sensitivity, and a good
lens can double (or even quadruple) that again, giving you 8x to 16x.

However... because dSLR sensors are larger, the lenses have to be
commensurately larger, and are much more expensive. You're going to shell
out a LOT more money, and carry around gear that is MUCH larger and heavier.
And spending a bunch of money on a dSLR doesn't do you nearly as much good
if you're only going to stick a cheap, crappy lens on it.

Also, rememeber that the dSLR won't make you a better photographer. A
poorly-composed snapshot that's entirely devoid of noise isn't really of any
more use than a poorly-composed snapshot with a good amount of noise. And a
good photographer with a P&S will take vastly better pictures than a
beginner with $10,000 worth of dSLR gear.

Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?

Many, but we don't know if they apply to you. As
off-of-the-top-of-my-head examples, if you want fast shutter response, there
are only a couple of P&S that will do. On the other hand, maybe you don't
like carrying around a big bag full of photo gear when you go on vacation.
Maybe you don't want to spend $600 or more on a camera, and then have to
spend nearly that much again (or more) on lenses. There are a lot of ups
and downs to each.

steve

wrote:

I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
$1000).

The main things I'm looking for a
- Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
which is nice)
- Good image quality

Here are some of the questions I have:
- Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
and 8 x 10?
- How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?

Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?

Buy the lens. Then get the camera that goes with it.

wrote:
I'm looking to take a step up to a more serious digital camera and I'm
trying to decide how far I want to go. The big decision is whether to
go with an advanced super-zoom camera (like the Sony DSC-H5) or to go
all the way to a digital SLR. The step up in price to the digital SLR
is quite a hefty step, so I want to make sure that I'm really going to
get my money's worth out of the SLR (I'd like to spend under or around
$1000).

I would recommend the new Canon XTi (aka 400D) and the Sigma 18-200mm
zoom as a starter set. I have this lens on the original Digital Rebel
and have found it to be a great all purpose lens. Plus, this is just
the start for this combination. When you buy a super zoom P&S there are
very little upgrade options. With a Rebel XTi the options are nearly
unlimited. Another thing to consider is the far superior low light
performance of a DSLR. To me the single big advantage of the super zoom
P&S cameras is the addition of image stabilization. This can also be
had with a DSLR but comes at a price.

The main things I'm looking for a
- Something with a good optical zoom (the Sony DSC-H5 had a 12X zoom
which is nice)
- Good image quality

Do you want/need the ability to shoot wide angle shots? If you do then
the DSLR is the better choice, IMO. If all you want is medium and
telephoto then a super zoom might fill your needs.

Here are some of the questions I have:
- Am I really going to notice the difference in image quality in, say,
and 8 x 10?

I recommend getting the highest megapixel camera you can afford. A 5mp
shot printed at 8"x10" is stretching it.

- How do the advanced super-zoom cameras do in low light situations vs.
the SLR? I've heard that SLRs are better, but is it a big difference?

There is a HUGE difference. If you want good low light performance then
the decision is easy. Get a DSLR.

Any other reasons that I should go one way or the other?

My advice is for you to figure out what subjects you wish to shoot and
under what conditions and then study the cameras available and then make
a decision. An educated consumer is typically one that is satisfied
with his choices.

I am a confirmed dSLR user who shoots only in raw and individually processes
every image.
I have a closet full of lenses.
I stongly believe that unless you are committed to raw image processing and
understand why you would feel compelled to use a specific lens for a
specific purpose that the dSLR, in its current design paradigm as a 21st
century 1950's vintage Exacta, is absolutely the wrong camera for the
majority of dSLR users.
If you want to shoot in jpeg, if you are not interested in color management
and are not committed to processing and printing every individual image to
whatever you consider its ultimate potential then it may be quite unwise to
lug around a heavy and inconvenient dSLR.
I am not sure that the dSLR is worth the weight and inconvenience penalty
that its form factor imposes on users in the most common settings in which
they will want to use a camera. The presumed benefit of the dSLR in enhanced
image quality for most users is illusory at best given the end purpose for
which the images will be used.
The experience I have had using advanced P&S and EVF digital cameras leads
me to believe that for most users these are by far the better option.
Specifically the newer generation of high megapixel, image stabilized all in
one long zoom cameras are more camera than what most consumers will ever be
able to utilize. Their advanced jpeg algorithms are, in my opinion, certain
to deliver better images than any comparably priced film camera despite the
serious latitude problems of current generation digital sensors.

LOL, this is all wrong!

wrote in message
ups.com...
i shoot my artwork, and send off the hi-res images to printers for
magazine ads and invites. so this is what i noticed.....

for my needs,,,right now,,,,dslr's are a pain in the @ss.

i need at least 8mp for a 300dpi print quality 8x10. i don't for a
second believe a 6mp dslr is as good as an 8mp advanced p&s. the image
quality might be better, but an 8x10 print is an 8x10 print, and with
300dpi that means at least an 8mp camera.

the dslr has a better more subtle value/color range, but a p&s gives me
what i want.

because i focus in on artwork, i prefer the manual focus on my lumix
fz30. with the dslr's i pretty much would have to depend on their auto
focus, unless i change the screen.

if you have to ask about a noticeable quality difference in images,
then an advanced p&s is all you need.

the only advantage i can think of is if you buy into a dslr system, you
can use the lenses and just buy better bodies in the future, but buying
into a system = more money to spend.

the lumix uses a leitz, the sony(dsc-r1) uses a zeiss,,,and the cameras
look cool.

check out steve's digicams and image resource for great comparative
sample images.

Pete D wrote:
LOL, this is all wrong!

ok....explain. i admit a lack of info. it's just my explanation of what
I need.